Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Fitzpatrick

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Fitzpatrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG and more specifically WP:AUTHOR. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: And aside from the nom's comments, the article was created by a SPA with no other edits, and seems to be a COI into the bargain. Article entirely sourced from primary sources, and the "trilogy" upon which the author's putative fame rests was, according to Amazon, self-published, and lacks so much as a sales rank. Thirteen years is far more than long enough for this self-promotional debris to be festering on Wikipedia. Ravenswing 22:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Too few citations and does not meet WP:AUTHOR. MartinWilder (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.